05/30/2012:

New York Liberty Report Exclusive Interview

By Frank Seabrook

Steve Levy Responds to Grand

Jury Report
Last month a Grand Jury issued a report that
was critical of the Suffolk County Ethics
Commission. Various comments in that
report were attributed by Newsday to have
referred to former County Exec Steve Levy.
In his first interview on this subject, Steve
Levy sat down with the New York Liberty
Report to discuss this Grand Jury report.
For those not familiar with the grand jury
process, a grand jury can be convened to
determine whether a criminal indictment
will be issued, or whether a
recommendation for legislative reform
should be made. In this case, the Grand Jury
held that no criminal acts were committed
but recommended numerous changes to the ethics code.
State law designed Grand Jurys to be weighted heavily towards the prosecution. Only the
prosecution can choose witnesses and documents that will be presented. Those investigated have
extremely limited rights.
This is why the law provides that the proceedings of a grand jury are secret. One of the reasons
for this secrecy is to protect an innocent person from accusations if no indictment is returned.
There are certain exceptions to the secrecy of a grand jury. According to the NYS Criminal
Procedure Law 190.85, the exception being for proposing recommendations for legislative,
executive, or administrative action in the public interest based upon stated findings. The court, to
which such report is submitted, shall make and accept such report as a public record.
However, the report must not be made public if it is critical of an identified or identifiable person.
In the case of this grand jury report, many believe Steve Levy was clearly an identifiable person,
since Newsday had no problem identifying him as County Official E.
Mr. Levy agreed to an interview with the New York Liberty Report and together we discussed
the grand jury findings.
1

[Editors Note: Mr. Levy states that the specific names mentioned in this interview were identified
by Newsday in its reports on this issue.]
The following are excerpts from our interview, as well as information provided by Mr. Levy.
NYLR: Hello Steve, thank you for meeting with me.
Levy: Thank you Frank for this opportunity.
NYLR: It certainly is a scathing report.
Levy: Yes, but much of the report was based on inaccurate conclusions on the law and facts.
NYLR: We couldnt help but notice that your side of the story was never presented, is there a
reason why you didnt appear at the Grand Jury?
Levy: Newsday earlier reported that many of my political detractors had already testified, but I
knew I would have no right to cross examine them. We were anticipating that we would see the
report, as per our understanding of state law, before it could ever be made public, so that we
would have a chance to respond in one shot after everyone else had made their points. I guess
they thought they didnt have to give it to me or seal the record because they were claiming I was
not identifiable.

NYLR: So you were never served with a copy of the report?

Levy: That is correct.
NYLR: A major point that the report seems to make is that you abused, or violated the integrity
of the Ethics Commission by using it as a tool against your political opponents.
Levy: I sought an ethics opinion to stop improper behavior. The first related to a legislator after
he introduced legislation to impede the closing of the Foley Nursing Home while his wife and
sister in-law worked there. The second related to my former deputy who worked with the union
to sue the County. This is exactly why you have an ethics board. When people see the nature of
the complaint, they seem to understand that. I wasnt using the system as a political sword.
NYLR: Was this mentioned in the report?
Levy: There was no mention in the report that the Grand Jury ever heard or considered the
details of what we believed were the egregious conflicted behavior that was the subject of my
complaint. Again, if they had seen the depth of these details, I think they would have agreed that
my quest for the opinions were indeed to protect the taxpayers rather than being some effort to
harm a political enemy.
NYLR: What about the integrity of the Ethics Commission?
Levy: I never told any ethics commission members how to vote on any case. It is important to
note that there was not a single example cited in the report where a single commissioner said I
interfered with the process. If it had happened, you can be assured it would have been included.
[Levy provided NYLR with the following statements from ethics commission members that he
claims support his position]

NYLR: You mentioned a county legislator and former deputy county executive. Can you
elaborate on why you felt it was necessary to bring these matters before the ethics commission,
and explain why you believed this was the proper course of action?
Levy: The report stated I had misused the ethics commission by bringing what it claimed was a
politically motivated request for an opinion regarding my former Chief Deputy Paul Sabatino
and County Legislator Ed Romaine. I saw these individuals engaging in conduct we believed
was detrimental to taxpayers. What was I supposed to do? Look the other way, or physically stop
them? No, the proper recourse is to submit it to the ethics commission to decide.
NYLR: Conduct detrimental to the taxpayer? In what way?
Levy: Romaines family members were working in the nursing home yet he was voting on
nursing home issues, debating the bills, and worse yet he actually sponsored a bill to make it
more difficult to sell or close the facility. His resolution had ramifications to the taxpayers to the
tune of tens of millions of dollars.
NYLR: You believe this was a conflict.
Levy: To us, this was a huge conflict, so we asked him to stop. He refused. We thereafter made
written requests for him to end this conflicted behavior.
NYLR: So you refute the notion that you were using the ethics commission improperly?
Levy: This is important because if my motivation was to hurt him politically I would have filed
for an opinion immediately after we witnessed his conflicted behavior. We would not have given
him repeated opportunities to correct his ways. It was only after he continuously blew us off that
we felt we had no other choice but to ask the ethics commission to intervene. It just seemed so
peculiar that in the end no one was criticizing Romaine for his conflicted behavior; they were
criticizing us for trying to stop it.
NYLR: Do you have proof of these requests?
Levy: Yes. Ill provide them to you.
[The requests were provided by Levy.]

NYLR: And what about Sabatino?

Levy: Sabatino was terminated in the fall of 2007; almost immediately thereafter he started
working for AME, the countys largest labor union, which naturally was an adversary to county
management.
NYLR: Why were you concerned about this?
Levy: By the nature of his position as Chief Deputy, Sabatino had access to confidential inside
information that few others had.
NYLR: What type of information?
Levy: Well, management would typically locate money for union raises in places the union could
not detect, so our negotiations could not be compromised. But now Sabatino was basically
working on the other side of the bargaining table with information the union should not have had.
NYLR: Was there any other important info he might have had?
Levy: On top of that he had been intricately involved with the nursing home issue and now he
was working with county employees in their lawsuit to help stop its sale or closure. How else
were we going to stop him from damaging the taxpayers interests other than going to the ethics
commission?
NYLR: So other than you, were there any concerns from anyone else in your administration?
Levy: There sure were. In fact my deputies were emailing each other with their concerns about
how this could hurt the county, and how in the past even Sabatino himself commented on this
type of contract as being a conflict.
NYLR: Will you provide us that as well.
Levy: Absolutely, not only emails but other documentation that led to our concerns.
[Provided by Levy]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

NYLR: Youre saying that the Grand Jury didnt see all this information? But didnt they hear
from Sabatino?
Levy: Well yes, Sabatino and his attorney Anton Borovina both admitted to Newsday that they
testified, and both had motives to testify in a way that would discredit the ethics commission.
NYLR: What was their testimony?
Levy: Newsday reported that Sabatino was the official in the county executives office who was
subject to an ethics complaint, and that same official was cited in the report as having given
testimony regarding the county ethics laws. So it sounds to me like he was presented as some
kind of expert. Ill provide you with the exact wording in the report.
[Levy later provided the following info he was referring to: On Page 7 of Grand Jury Report,
The Grand Jury heard testimony from County Official B who worked for nearly 30 years as an
attorney in different capacities for Suffolk County, he was involved in drafting language for
many legislative resolutions. He described further efforts to fine-tune the financial disclosure
statute.]
NYLR: So why is that a problem?
Levy: This is the same Paul Sabatino who had been seeking to discredit the ethics commission
over a three year period, as it deliberated upon a complaint that he had violated the Countys
ethics code by working with the union and suing the county within two years of his termination.
NYLR: Just so I understand, let me get this straight. Sabatino went from being investigated by
the ethics commission, to now being an expert witness testifying to the grand jury against the
ethics commission?
Levy: It appears that way. And nowhere in the Grand Jury report was it mentioned that Sabatino
had this ample motive to discredit the ethics commission, or to extract retribution upon me due to
my administrations request for this opinion, or having him fired.
NYLR: Interesting And you say that Newsday had earlier reported that the Grand Jury also
heard testimony from Anton Borovina. So whats the significance of that?
Levy: Newsday noted that Borovina spoke, and Ill quote, on the history of ethics regulations in
Suffolk. But what was not mentioned was that Borovina was not only wrong on the law, he had
a huge conflict, in that he was associated in business dealings with Sabatino, as well as being his
lawyer in the case before the ethics commission that members of my administration brought
against Sabatino.
NYLR: So Boravina went from representing Sabatino, who was being investigated by the ethics
commission; to now being an expert witness also testifying to the grand jury against the ethics
commission.

18

Levy: Again it appears that way. I have a letter dating back to 2010 expressing concern about
Borovinas involvement in the investigation of the ethics commission, the very ethics
commission that was holding hearings regarding his client, Mr. Sabatino. Conflicts never seemed
to deter Borovina. In fact, he was so brazen in conflicted behavior that he had the gall to
aggressively apply for the position of legal counsel to the legislatures investigation of the ethics
commission, at the same time he was representing clients before that body.
[Levy provided letter.]

19

20

NYLR: So was any of this evidence presented to the grand jury?

Levy: I dont think so, it certainly wasnt mentioned in the report. Worse yet, Borovina also was
the attorney for Comptroller Joseph Sawicki in the case Sawicki brought against Ethics Director
Alfred Lama regarding his health benefits, which was a major topic in the Grand Jury report.
[Levy provided document.]

21

NYLR: So County Comptroller Joe Sawicki initiated a suit against Alfred Lama regarding
whether he was entitled to health benefits. Newsday reported the Grand Jury Report said Lamas
independence was compromised because the county held that he was entitled to those health
benefits. How do you respond to that?
Levy: The grand jury relied on incorrect information when it mistakenly stated that an ethics
official working for the commission was given health benefits to which he allegedly was not
entitled, and that this supposedly clouded his independence. That is just inaccurate.
NYLR: It was also reported that Comptroller Sawicki conducted an audit of Lamas timesheets.
Levy: The audit by Sawicki was simply incorrect. It took the view that Lama did not qualify for
benefits because he did not work more than 50% of a full time position in each payroll period.
This is a ridiculous and illogical standard.
NYLR: How so?
Levy: Obviously, one must look at the hours accumulated over the course of that year, not on a
week to week, or bi-weekly fashion. To adopt the logic of the Comptroller, administrators in his
office would have to monitor an employee pay period by pay period. And, if they were
monitoring this on a week to week basis, why didnt they kick him off benefits on those weeks
he worked less?
NYLR: So youre saying thats not practical.
Levy: No. Because one two-week period the employee would be eligible for benefits while
losing the benefits the following week, only to have them reinstated the next.
The Comptrollers inaccurate audit which apparently was relied upon by the Grand Jury was
actually refuted by the Countys Labor Relations Director last summer. Ill provide that letter to
you.
[Levy provided letter.]

22

23

Suffolk County Community College

Office of Human Resources
July 11, 2011
Christine Malafi, Esq.
County Attorney
Suffolk County Attorneys Office
PO Box 6100
Hauppauge, New York 11788
Re: Part-time Employees
Dear Ms. Malafi;
This letter shall serve to confirm our conversation with regard to two questions
you requested clarification on.
The first question involved part-time workers and how holidays and paid time off
through use of accruals would impact their part-time work schedule. Under the
AMB contract, paid holidays and use of paid accruals (i.e. vacation, sick,
personal, compensatory) is considered time worked. Therefore, an AMB parttime employee who utilizes paid accruals or who receives pay for holidays, such
time would be considered in determining his/her scheduled work year.
The second question relates to determining the period of time that a part time
employee must work greater than 50% in order to be eligible for benefits. While
it is well established that the employee must work greater than 50% of the work
week, it has not been established over what period of time this should be
measured. For a management employee who has the ability to vary his/her work
schedule, it has not been determined at this time if the period of measuring the
50% is weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually.
From a stand point of determining eligibility for health insurance alone, it is not
possible to alter someones health insurance on a weekly, bi-weekly or even
monthly basis. This is due to the rules requiring a waiting period to commence
health insurance of approximately two months. Therefore, it would be impossible
to put someone on or take them off health insurance on a weekly or even
monthly basis.
I hope the above answers the questions that you have raised. If you have any
further questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 631-451-4239.
24

Sincerely,
Jeffrey L. Tempera
Assistant Vice President
Human Resources
JLT:or
Levy continued: The Labor Relations Director also noted that the comptroller failed to include
Judge Lamas accrued vacation and sick time in calculating his hours, which he was required to
do under the contract.
NYLR: So Sawicki was wrong in his determination that Lama received benefits to which he was
not entitled? And Newsday suggested that the Grand Jury relied on this information.
Levy: Yes, and the Grand Jury report suggests that there was some kind of inappropriate plan to
have an ethics official classified as a management employee so he could qualify for benefits
where he could not otherwise obtain them. There was no such arrangement.
What happened here, according to the County Attorney, is that the legislation appointing the
ethics official, as drafted, inadvertently and incorrectly listed him as a union employee. It was
later discovered that he was management, because he could be fired at will by the ethics
commission and did not have civil service protection.
The Grand Jury said that Lama was not entitled to benefits because he was supposed to be a
union employee. But this was inconsistent and illogical. The Grand Jury Report itself defined a
management employee as someone that served at the pleasure of his or her supervisors. Ill
provide you with that statement.
[Levy provided the following statement later. On page 16, the Grand Jury report notes, Suffolk
County Employees, other than sworn police or correction officers, are categorized as either
management employees, meaning that they serve at the pleasure of their designated supervisor,
or are civil servants protected by collective bargaining agreements and are members of the
Association of Municipal Employees (herein after A.M.E.).]
Levy continued: That is exactly what Lama was. He could be hired or fired at the discretion of
the ethics commission. So how in the world could they say that the county attorney was incorrect
is designating him as a management employee? And by the way, regardless whether he was
union or management he still qualified for the benefits! We couldnt take them away even if we
wanted to.
Ironically, the county attorneys review of his timesheets shows that he would have been owed
wages if his hours were based on being a union employee.
[Levy provided the quote from the county attorneys report which stated, Our calculations
clearly show that if the executive directors wages are calculated as an AME employee, he is
owed wages.]
25

NYLR: The Grand Jury reported that the ethics officials independence was impaired by the
improper financial benefit he received from the executive branch of government
Levy: It is truly baffling how this minor correction on his management status could be presented
as some type of conspiracy to grant a favor to an ethics director. Remarkably some media went
as far as to brazenly suggest it was done in order to get a favorable ethics opinion from him.
NYLR: So the Grand Jury contradicted itself.
Levy: Yes. On the one hand it defined a management employee as someone who serves at the
pleasure of his supervisor, and then it criticized the county attorney for designating Judge Lama
as management, who indeed served at the pleasure of his supervisor.
NYLR: So why does that matter?
Levy: This mistake is crucial because the Grand Jury thereafter mistakenly suggested that Lama
received a favor from the Executive Branch to give him something to which he was not entitled
and that this so-called favor compromised the judges independence.
It is illogical to suggest that an action was taken as far back as 2004, when Lama was deemed
management; to influence a decision by Lama on a question that would not even be posed to him
until 2007, the question related to filing of the financial disclosure form.
NYLR: Did the report actually tie the two together?
The Grand Jury report ultimately included a line that there is no evidence to link the two, but
the damage was already done. By connecting the two in the narrative, people could reach a false
impression of what actually happened. One media editorial picked up on this topic, and
concluded that the county executive approved salary benefits to a commissioner to avoid
having to file disclosure forms embarrassing to his wife.
This is just plain wrong. Wrong facts, and no evidence, but still a suggestion is made that there
was something nefarious.
Financial Disclosures
NYLR: That brings us to the financial disclosures. How did this whole thing start?
Levy: It is no coincidence that the saga related to financial disclosure and all that followed began
very soon after I switched my registration from Democrat to Republican. Suddenly, I was
questioned by the media about why I had been filing a New York State disclosure form.
NYLR: The claim was you inappropriately failed to file a county financial disclosure form and
were given a special favor by the Ethics Commission allowing you to file the state financial
disclosure form instead.

26

Levy: This too was inaccurate. It was not a matter of choice I was required by state law to file
the state form because I was a member of the New York State Pine Barrens Commission. The
fact that I was required to file the state form was not noted in the Grand Jury report. This is
important because it tears apart the suggestion that I was shopping for the most advantageous
form in which to file.
Ill get you the letter proving I was required to file the state form.
[Levy provided letter.]

27

28

NYLR: But the grand jury said you acted inappropriately by not filing the county form.
Levy: The Grand Jury report was inaccurate in stating that I had to file the county form after
already filing the state form. The grand jury members are generally not lawyers and I believe
they were probably relying on legal analysis from individuals who had massive conflicts of
interest.
With all the highly respected independent ethics experts throughout New York State, the Grand
Jury apparently relied on Sabatino and Borovina, these two conflicted individuals who had been
bashing the ethics commissions for the past two years. Yet all of the major ethics scholars in
New York State including Mark Davies the head of New York Citys Board who helped draft the
original state legislation, and Barry Ginsberg the former director of the State Commission of
Public Integrity, agreed that I did the proper thing regarding my filings. And none of these
experts were quoted in the report.
NYLR: Do you have these opinions?
Levy: Yes Ill get them to you, as well as two other experts who agree with me, including the
former counsel to Nassaus commission.
[Levy provided letters.]

29

30

31

32

33

NYLR: Why did you file a request for an opinion from the ethics commission regarding your
filing?
Levy: Before my request for an opinion was ever filed, Ethics Commissioners had already told
another employee that the filing of the state form had to be accepted by the county. They were
mandated to accept the state form from those who had to file it. So it wasnt as though an Ethics
Commission official crafted a special decision just for me.
Once I heard from that fellow employee that the filing of the state form complied with county
requirements, I wrote to the commission just to confirm that the information given to me was, in
fact, accurate. I received a letter indicating that once the state form was filed there was no need
to file a duplicative county form. So I left it at that. And the media didnt seem to care until I
switched my enrollment 4 years later.
NYLR: But the Grand Jury cited a case where they claim the county law trumped the state law.
Levy: I knew that Sabatino and Borovina in the past inappropriately misapplied this case. In that
case a party leader, who was not required to file a state form, had failed to file either a state or
county form. The court correctly ruled that he had to file the county form. That is clearly
distinguishable from my case where I had to file the state form, and did indeed file it. The state
law is clear, that once you file the state form you dont have to file a duplicative county form.
Again, the individual in that case cited filed no report whatsoever.
NYLR: But didnt the report claim the state form was less extensive?
Levy: The states highest ethics expert concluded that the Grand Jurys assertion that the county
form was more extensive than the states was inaccurate. The state form asks far more probative
questions than the countys form, including seeking information about gifts, political party
information, future contracts, etc. He went so far as to say the county form did not comply with
state law.
NYLR: Do you have that opinion?
Levy: Yes, I will provide it. And you have to understand that even the county legislature
eventually conceded the county form was deficient. And thats why they amended the form last
summer to include all the state form questions that were missing on the county form.
[Levy provided opinion.]

34

35

36

37

38

NYLR: So youre saying that the experts note that the state form is more comprehensive than the
county.
Levy: Yes, this information is crucial because it refutes the nonsensical unsubstantiated
allegations in the media that I was looking to file a state form rather than a county form so as to
hide information, without saying what that information was. Both forms ask about your outside
income.
NYLR: Do you wish to elaborate on assertions in the media that your wifes business was
somehow helped?
Levy: This area was perhaps the most disturbing of any area in the report. The report was worded
in such a way as to lead media outlets to suggest that my wife was building her business through
improper means. Actually, my wife started her business as a single mom and did it the old
fashion way, through hard work. She was alone with a three year old and an infant. She could
have gone on welfare but did not. She networked, took out massive loans, and took great risks.
Yet, weve had to endure inaccurate innuendo that she received county contracts or that I did
something inappropriate to build her business. One media outlet website stated that I helped
firms owned by my wife to gain contracts. The undisputed fact is that she never received a
contract from the county. My administration barred the County from even taking a bid from her
companies.
NYLR: What type of business did she run?
Levy: A medical transcription company. It was founded long before I became County Executive.
Her company provides transcription services to hospitals and medical centers. When opportunity
to bid on hospital work came about, there would be no reason she would be blocked from doing
so since she was not contracting with the county or doing any county business for these separate
entities. The spouse of a state official isnt barred from working for a public school district
simply because the district gets state aide.
But just to be sure, she went through the extra step of seeking an opinion from the Ethics
Commission, which ruled that no conflict existed as long as she did not use my name, which she
never did. Yet it was suggested in the press that I controlled the commissioners who voted on the
issue. What was not mentioned is that two of the three commissioners were appointed in the
previous Gaffney administration.
NYLR: You are obviously very frustrated by all this.
Levy: This is one of those situations that comes under the heading damned if you do, damned if
you dont. If my wife did not seek an ethics opinion, she and I would have been criticized for
not vetting the issue. Yet once you get a decision you are wrongly criticized by those who
baselessly refuse to accept it.
NYLR: The grand jury report claims you threatened legislators by obtaining their financial
disclosure forms. How do you respond?
39

Levy: The legislature created an investigative panel as a political witch hunt against me after I
changed political parties. I had insisted that if it was going to be reviewing financial disclosures,
it must be looked at evenhandedly by reviewing both branches of government, not just the
executives in political fashion. This was not a threat. This was about fairness in highlighting the
double standard that was taking place.
NYLR: Could you be more specific about this double standard you refer to?
Levy: This is significant because the media reports wrongfully suggested that I was remiss in not
having my wifes clients listed. After perusing through the other forms that were obtained via
Freedom of Information requests, no other official had their clients listed either. And for good
reason. There was no request or requirement on the forms, or in the law, that filers include a
listing of clients. The point I was making to legislators is that my claim that clients were not
required to be filed was bolstered by the fact that other county officials did not list them either.
For instance, the comptroller had side accounting and fishing businesses, and did not disclose
clients. That is why it was necessary for the legislative panel to expand its review beyond my
forms. When I brought this up to legislators, some went public claiming I was threatening them.
This was not a threat. This was about fairness. I wrote a letter to Presiding Officer Lindsey
complaining about the double standard and calling for the legislature not to exempt itself in this
review.
[Levy provided letter to Lindsey.]

40

41

NYLR: So to conclude, how long did it take for the ethics commission to finally render a
decision regarding requests you made pertaining to the conflicts with Sabatino and Romaine?
Levy: The ethics commission which normally may take a few weeks or possibly months to
render an opinion was taking years. My administration expressed frustration over this long delay
on the cases of both Sabatino and Romaine. One way or another just decide.
The ultimate irony is, were there such control over the ethics commission, as implied by this
report, the administration would have received favorable rulings within a very short turnaround.
This did not happen.
NYLR: I appreciate the amount of time you gave us.
Levy: I think we covered a great deal and again I appreciate the opportunity. It will be fun to get
back to discussing the various important issues affecting our residents.
NYLR: So whats next for Steve Levy?
Levy: Im enjoying the slower pace and spending time with my family, but will hopefully find a
way to contribute to the community.
NYLR: Thank you Steve.
Levy: Thank you.
----

42